Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
Recreational non-consumptive use of wildlife has been attract&g &creasing
numbers of people and generating growing economic benefits from tourism
activity. More importantly this type of wildlife interaction has potential
benefits to conservation from the long-term effect of changing attitudes
towards wild animals and natural habitats. It does not, however,fit well into
the existing wildlife management paradigm due to the nature of the final
product, a recreation experience. This paper aims to provide an integrated
framework that illustrates the major components of non-consumptive wildlife
recreation and links between research areas in ecology, animal behaviour,
recreation, tourism and existing wildlife management institutions. The
fundamental purpose of this paper is to cast wildlife conservation in a new
light that recognizes the need to formulate management plans in both a social
and biological context.
INTRODUCTION
Human interaction with wildlife has often entailed the death or removal of
organisms from their natural habitat. Large state-controlled bureaucracies
have evolved in many nations to 'manage' such consumptive uses. The main
function of wildlife management authorities has been to provide for the 'wise
use'-oriented conservation of wild populations according to demandgenerated objectives. In North America this has largely evolved into the
213
Biol. Conserv. 0006-3207/90/$03-50 1990 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed
in Great Britain
214
Wildlife-oriented recreation
215
Low
Hunting
Culling
Predator
control
Live
capture
Fig.
1.
I
Research
m.
NonConservation Option
consumptive
and
existence
recreational
lobby
and bequest
use
group
value
membership
A c o n t i n u u m of h u m a n - w i l d l i f e interaction.
216
HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP
HUMAN RECREATION
INTERACTION
(b)
(C)
CONSUMPTIVE NON-CONSUMPTIVE
USE ~
~ USE
WILD SPECIES AND
HABITATS
Uses
Consumptive uses
COMMERCIAL HUNTING
SPORT HUNTING
SUBSISTENCE HUNTING
COMMERCIAL FISHING
SPORT FISHING
SUBSISTENCE FISHING
FUR TRAPPING AND
HUNTING
HUNTING FOR ANIMAL
PARTS AND PET TRADE
INDIRECT KILLS THROUGH
OTHER ACTIVITIES
(I:~OLLUTION, BY-CATCH,
ROAD KILLS)
ERADICATION PROGRAMS
FOR ANIMALS WITH REAL
AND PERCEIVED THREATS
(a)
Low Consumptive
Uses
ZOOS AND
ANIMAL PARKS
AQUARIA AND OCEANARIA
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
BIRDWATCHING
WHALE-WATCHING
PHOTOGRAPHIC TRIPS
ORGANIZED AND INDIVIDUAL
NATURE WALKS
COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
AND CINEMATOGRAPHY
SECONDARY WILDLIFE
VIEWING IN PARKS, RESERVES
AND RECREATIONAL AREAS
Wildlife-oriented recreation
217
rationale for this is not only to enhance the conceptual clarity and link
existing theoretical structures in diverse bodies of literature to a broader
framework of understanding but also to reinforce the case for the analysis
and management of non-consumptive wildlife pursuits that includes both
the human and ecological dimensions.
The call for social science input into wildlife management in general began
decades ago (e.g. Leopold, 1940; Leopold, 1943 in Flader, 1974) and has
continued sporadically over the interim (e.g. Clarke, 1974; Scheffer, 1976;
Todd, 1980). Research in the early 1970s formalized a growing body of
thought among wildlife managers based on the knowledge of behavioural
aspects of the traditional user group dominated by sport hunters and
fishermen (e.g. Hendee, 1969; Hendee & Potter, 1971; Hendee & Schoenfeld,
1973; Knopf et al., 1973; Potter et al., 1973; Stankey et al., 1973; Hendee,
1974). On a parallel course researchers in the field of outdoor recreation
began to develop theories and methods directed to the psychological
dimensions of their constituency (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966; Driver &
Tocher, 1970; Driver & Knopf, 1977). Recently wildlife managers have
begun exploring the social characteristics of the new constituency, the nonconsumptive user (e.g. Brown et al., 1986; Manfredo & Haight, 1986; Moss et
al., 1986; Decker & Purdy, 1988).
Non-consumptive wildlife management lies at the juncture of these two
areas of research. It depends on the biological sciences to understand the
nature of the support system that presents the opportunity for contact
between the users and the focal species, and the techniques of the social
scientist to understand the interrelated concepts of satisfaction that produce
the recreational benefits. Thus, the non-consumptive framework to be
described can be viewed as a more in-depth examination of the nonconsumptive use element in Box (c) in Fig. 2.
THE C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K
The proposed framework includes three initial elements: the focal species or
species groups, the human user, and the history of the relationship between
the two (Fig 3). These are presented as individual elements for ease of
description, yet it is recognized that they are interrelated, largely through the
historical aspects of the relationship. These elements combine to produce
NCWOR. The activity is undertaken by a wide variety of recreationists that
interact with each other, and with the site of the activity to produce changes
in both over time. This interaction has considerable management
implications both for the user and the species. Each element of the
framework will now be discussed in turn.
218
MANAGEMENT
WILDLIFE USER
" HISTORICAL
RELATIONSHIP
NON-CONSUMPTIVE
WILDLIFE USE " ~
~..~
~..~
"
Time
HABITAT
I
Fig. 3.
GROWTH CURVE j
A
-
\('~
MANAGEMENT )
History influences the demand for wildlife contact in two major ways, first
through the influence of humans on animal species and their habitats, and
second, via the cultural conditioning of perceptions that have taken place
over the centuries.
The density and habits of almost all wild species have been altered
through human influence over long periods of time. Certain species have
proven susceptible to domestication and their numbers increased far above
natural limits. Much of the earth has been controlled by man to provide
optimal feeding conditions. Vast areas are devoted to raising sheep, cattle
and goats. They are a c o m m o n landscape component in many parts of the
world. By way of contrast many other species have been found to have little
direct economic benefit for society and their numbers have been
dramatically reduced, often due to habitat change generated by the need to
accommodate the domestic species. Thus, the history of contact has
dramatically increased the abundance of some species and led to the
extinction, extirpation and increasing rarity of others. Ironically the latter,
due to their very rarity, are now often accorded the highest values in society.
The desire to view particular animals is fueled by the image humans have
developed over their previous association. Authors such as Appleton (1975)
have suggested that aesthetic pleasure for humans may ultimately be
genetically controlled. Thus, landscapes that are favourable for humans as
organisms often elicit pleasurable feelings and a sense of well-being that may
not be recognized as aesthetic preferences for the landscape. Appleton
argues than in the case of humans such landscapes would contain both
prospect and refuge. Elements of this same reasoning can be applied to
Wildlife-oriented recreation
219
220
survival form the second foundation of the framework (Fig. 3). Within this
aspect lies a need for sophisticated ecological analysis. Non-consumptive
use of wildlife requires a predictable occurrence of the target species within a
fairly small spatial area. For that reason, established areas of nonconsumptive contact often focus on a location coincident with special life
history requirements of the species. A classic case is the heavy concentration
of brown bear Ursus arctos at Alaska's McNeil River State Game Sanctuary
from late June to mid-August each year. Returning chum salmon at this time
of year must surmount a 100-m stretch of white-water where over 60
individual bears per day may congregate to feed (Bledsoe, 1987). The
spectacle has attracted over 2600 visitors in the past 16 years without a single
maiming incident, despite the fact that the visitors sometimes find
themselves within 5 m of the bears. This relatively benign interaction is often
attributed to the well-fed state of the animals and the closely controlled
lottery system that limits the number of tourists to 10 at a time.
In many cases the priority for analysis and management is developing a
working knowledge of the relationship between the organism and a
particular site. Many baseline studies have analyzed the ecology of large
mammals of the African savannah and forest communities that have
become foci of non-consumptive use (e.g. Schaller, 1963, 1972; Wing & Buss,
1970; Kruuk, 1972; Douglas-Hamilton, 1973; Laws et al., 1975). Some
studies have evolved as a response to increased non-consumptive use, for
example humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in Glacier Bay, Alaska
(Baker et al., 1983; Miles & Malme, 1983; Kreiger & Wing, 1984), and beluga
whales Delphinapterus leucas in the St Lawrence estuary (Sergeant & Hoek,
1988). In one case, the giant tortoises Geochelone gigantea of Aldabra Atoll,
research and experimental translocation of specimens to a more accessible
and manageable site were carried out in response to non-consumptive
demand (Stoddart et al., 1982).
A second and related biological consideration is the establishment of
behavioural and reproduction benchmarks that will allow managers to
recognize when the focal species is being disturbed, and if that disturbance
has potential to harm the individual or the population. These questions are
crucial, yet often represent difficult areas in which to obtain concrete
answers, although a body of research exists on short-term responses. Studies
of ungulate disturbance point to changes in behavior, physiology and
reproduction (Klein, 1971; Wobesor et al., 1976; Rost & Bailey, 1979;
MacArthur et aL, 1982; Valkenburg et al., 1983; Geist et al., 1985; Yarmoloy
et al., 1988). Study of various whale species' response to disturbance have
been less conclusive (Baker et al., 1983; Watkins, 1986).
Often management must proceed before scientifically valid responses to
the harassment question can be brought forth from the research community.
In those cases biological uncertainty plays a major role in the quality of any
Wildlife-oriented recreation
221
management plan and the balance between opinion and fact in the
management equation is often weighted toward opinion. Therefore, the
manager is faced with the potentially politically charged endeavour of
assessing a range of informed opinion regarding specific cases, assessing the
veracity of the scientific 'facts' and developing a management plan.
The wildlife user
These three foundations, the history, target organism and host ecosystem,
222
Wildlife-oriented recreation
223
LAC I I l .........................
v ~ ( C ~) ' ~ .
E<N
I
T/
GENERALIST
-----~/
LAc.,
E=N/
sE?~ERgsT
J
__.....~,/
~N
~OV~EsT
~V%E
SPECIALIST
GENERALIST
TIME
--
EXPERT
SPECIALIST
NOVICE
NERALlST
"~
Fig. 4.
224
Wildlife-oriented recreation
225
the physical or management parameters may be far less flexible (Shelby &
Hiberlein, 1986).
This can be illustrated by reference to Fig. 4. Point A, for example, may
allow a maximum number of viewers with minimum facilities and negligible
impact on the species or habitat. Depending upon the management goals for
the site this point may define the carrying capacity or limits of acceptable
change (LAC I, after Stankey et al., 1985). If the LAC are broadened to
accommodate perhaps reduced wildlife populations (the more wary
individuals in the population may, for example, no longer tolerate human
presence above these numbers), increased facilities and fewer demands upon
the visitor, then the limit (LAC II) may be at B on Fig. 4. Point C may
represent the balance where maximum visitors can be tolerated and still
maintain the activity (LAC III). If this point is passed then visitors may be
reduced in number (point D) due to failure of the site to provide the expected
satisfactions. The ecological carrying capacity may have been so violated at
this point that the chances of encountering the species are considerably
diminished and hence visitors, especially generalist visitors, may not be
willing to make the required investment. Indeed violating LAC III may well
be serious enough to permanently alter the ecological capacity of the site to
provide the recreational experience. It is unlikely in the case of wildlife that
the curve would be symmetrical, allowing the opportunity to violate the
critical threshold levels and yet return to the original situation. Thus, any
increase in visitors following point C, E would in all likelihood represent a
different but perhaps related attraction at the site with less sensitive LAC.
Data from a wide range of sites with various management regimes (e.g.
national parks, marine sites, endangered species habitat) are required to
establish the specific shapes that Butler's curve may take under different
circumstances. Protected areas of various descriptions running from I U C N
Class I to VII categories (Commission on National Parks and Protected
Areas, 1984) have different goals and objectives. Some wildlife sites may
make extensive use of commercial operators (such as whale-watching
cruises) while others on individual foot traffic (e.g. birdwatching in critical
areas). Different species and even different individuals have different
tolerance levels to disturbance. All these conditions will influence the shape
of the curve and the criteria for LAC establishment.
Currently plans that incorporate an ecological basis yet recognize that the
context of the social reality of the local region of non-consumptive use areas
remain rare. Research from national parks and wildlife programmes in Africa
(Western, 1984; Abel & Blaikie, 1986; Anderson & Grove, 1987; Bell, 1987),
India (Panwar, 1984; Saharia, 1984) and Nepal (Mishra, 1984) points to
some emerging themes in planning and some of the difficulties encountered
226
Wildlife-oriented recreation
227
228
Wildlife-oriented recreation
229
230
Wildlife-oriented recreation
231
Wilderness Planning. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-176, Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Station, Ogden Utah.
Stoddart, D. R., Cowx, D., Peet, C. & Wilson, J. R. (1982). Tortoises and tourists in
the western Indian Ocean: The Curieuse experiment. Biol. Conserv., 24, 67-80.
Stoll, J. R. & Johnson, L. A. (1984). Concepts of value, nonmarket valuation, and the
case of the whooping crane. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 49, 383-93.
Thompson, B. C. (1987). Attributes and implementation of non-game and
endangered species programs in the United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 15, 210-16.
Tilt, W. (1985). Whales and Whalewatching in North America with Special Emphasis
on Whale Harassment. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,
New Haven, Connecticut.
Todd, A. W. (1980). Public relations, public education and wildlife management.
Wildl. Soc. Bull., 8, 55 60.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In
Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill. Plenum
Press, New York, pp. 85-126.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1987). 1985 National Survey of Hunting,
Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation. US Government Printing Office,
Washington.
Valkenburg, P., Boertje, R. D. & Davis, J. C. (1983). Effects of darting and netting on
caribou in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage., 47, 1233-7.
Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Heberlein, T. A. & Shelby, B. (1982). Differences in
reported satisfaction ratings by consumptive and nonconsumptive recreationists. J. Leisure Res., 14, 195-206.
Wagar, J. A. (1969). Nonconsumptive uses of the coniferous forest, with special
relation to consumptive uses. In Coniferous Forest of the Northern Rock
Mountains: Proceedings of the 1968 Symposium, ed. R. D. Taber. University of
Montana Foundation, Missoula, pp. 255 70.
Watkins, W. A. (1986). Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters.
Mar. Mammal Sci., 2, 251-62.
Western, D. (1984). Amboseli National Park: Human values and the conservation of
a savanna ecosystem. In National Parks Conservation and Development: The
Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, ed. J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 93-100.
Whelan, H. (1988). Nature tourism. Environ. Conserv., 15, 182.
Wilkes, B. (1979). The myth of the non-consumptive user. Park News, 15, 16-21.
Wing, L. D. & Buss, I. O. (1970). Elephants and forests. Wildl. Monogr., 19.
Wobesor, G., Bellamy, J. E. C., Boyen, B. G., MacWilliams, P. S. & Rudge, W. (1976).
Myopathy and myoglobinvra in a white-tailed deer. J. Am. Vet. Med. Ass., 169,
971 74.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1983). The concept of nature: A psychologist's view. In Behavior and
the Natural Environment, ed. I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill. Plenum Press, New
York, pp. 5 38.
Yarmoloy, C., Bayer, M. & Geist, V. (1988). Behavior responses and reproduction of
mule-deer, Odocoileus hemionus, does following experimental harassment with
an all-terrain vehicle. Can. Fld Nat., 102, 425 9.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. Am.
Psychol., 35, 151-75.